John Denham: We support a range of policies to ensure that talented people from all backgrounds are able and willing to develop their potential through higher education. They include the "Aimhigher" programme and the "Gifted and talented" education programme, which run alongside universities' own outreach activities and the continuing development of better links between schools and higher education. We are also improving the level of student financial support, so that from September, at least two thirds of all students will receive a full or partial grant.

Ian Lucas: New universities with science and innovation campuses, such as the one that we hope to have very shortly in Wrexham, often have the closest relationships with industry. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that such universities have equal access to research funding, which should not be allocated on a purely historic basis?

Ian Pearson: One of the great things that we have seen over the last 10 years is increased and sustained investment in the science budget, with greater business interaction between the university research base and companies in particular areas. Research funding is provided on the basis of peer review proposals through the research councils, so it is not based on historic performance at all. It will be up to universities to submit good quality applications to be considered by the research councils. One of the exciting things that has happened as a result of the new spending round is that, for the first time, there are big cross-council research programmes that address some of the biggest challenges facing the world today, such as living with environmental change, energy and so on. There are opportunities for researchers to put forward project proposals to work in those exciting areas, which could be hugely important for the UK and globally.

Andy Reed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. As he is aware, Loughborough university developed simply because of its enormous strength in linking academic strength with business, which has gone from strength to strength ever since Schofield set up the university all those decades ago. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the work of the Energy Technologies Institute, which has demonstrated exactly how we can get business and academic researchers to work together, not just in a business sense, but to make an environmental impact? Will he join me in visiting the companies that are involved, including at the Loughborough Innovation Centre and at Intelligent Energy, which has done an enormous amount to make progress on fuel cell technology and has secured further private sector funding in the past few weeks? Will he then commit the Government to promoting that technology, so that we can get it to market, which is the crucial part, on which I should like the Government do a little more?

Eric Joyce: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. The business start-up rate in my constituency is just above the Scottish national average. What is my right hon. Friend doing to help small and medium-sized companies to innovate, and can he convey any of that to the Scottish Executive?

Harriet Harman: The business for the week commencing 31 March will be:
	Monday 31 March—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution on the Housing and Regeneration Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Housing and Regeneration Bill, followed by a motion to consider the Northern Rock plc Transfer Order 2008.
	Tuesday 1 April—Second Reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill.
	Wednesday 2 April—Opposition day [9th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled, "The Economy, Repossessions and the Housing Market", followed by a debate entitled, "The Government's Flawed Policy on Heathrow". Both debates arise on a Liberal Democrat motion.
	Thursday 3 April—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by motion on the April recess Adjournment.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 21 April will include:
	Monday 21 April—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
	Tuesday 22 April—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill, followed by a motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules.
	Wednesday 23 April—Opposition day [10th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 24 April—Topical debate: subject to be announced; followed by a general debate, subject to be announced.
	Friday 25 April—Private Members' Bills.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. As she will be aware, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has caused huge controversy, but six weeks after First Reading we have still not been told how it will be handled in the House. When will she make a statement on that?
	This week, the Justice Secretary announced that the Government would be consulting on changes to the method of electing Members to this House. As Leader of this House, will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that no changes to the voting system will be imposed or introduced without cross-party consent?
	On Monday, we will be debating the remaining stages of the Housing and Regeneration Bill. The Bill received pre-legislative scrutiny last summer and finished its Committee stage at the end of January, but this week, only three sitting days before debate on Report, the Government have tabled 136 amendments and new clauses, on top of the 300 amendments they had already tabled in the past two months. The right hon. and learned Lady is responsible for managing Government business. She also has a responsibility to ensure that Members can scrutinise Bills properly. As Leader of the House, does she really believe that that is the right way to manage business and scrutinise important legislation?
	Last week, it was reported that the Transport for London commissioner has asked his communications team to set up an "anti-Boris unit". Transport for London has also told taxi drivers that they cannot issue receipts with "Back Boris" on them, and has threatened to withdraw funding from the Metropolitan police if its road traffic officers continue to criticise the safety record of bendy buses. Is that not a flagrant abuse of power? Can we have debate on Transport for London?
	It has emerged this week that almost half our hospitals have turned away women in labour because they did not have the space for them. That lack of care for pregnant women has put their health and the health of their babies at risk, yet this Government still plan to close more local maternity services. Can we have a debate in Government time on cuts in maternity service?
	Last year, the Government introduced passport interviews designed to weed out bogus candidates, but 38,000 checks and £93 million later not a single applicant has been rejected under the scheme. Is that not another example of the Government wasting taxpayers' money? Can we have a debate on the procedures for issuing passports?
	This week, the National Union of Teachers voted to forbid military officers giving careers advice to schools because they would glorify war. That is on top of the decision that the Government made last year to abolish the Ministry of Defence's defence schools presentation team. Why are lawyers, accountants and doctors allowed to promote their profession to schools, but soldiers are not allowed to talk about defending our country? Can we have a debate on the careers advice being given to our young people in schools?
	The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), has published a doomsday list of Labour MPs who are at risk of losing their seats, which shows the results depending on a mere 7,500 voters. The former Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers), recently criticised the Government's tax policy. I wonder whether that is why both of them were put on the list for a Delegated Legislation Committee starting at 8.55 am today. Even the Leader of the House is reported as having criticised the Prime Minister's communication skills and having said to him:
	"When you talk about opportunity, nobody knows what you're talking about".
	Do not all those examples show that the Government are incompetent, that they waste taxpayers' money, that they have no vision for this country and that there is only one man to blame—the Prime Minister?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady asked about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Obviously, there is concern that it is properly handled and that proper scrutiny is given by this House. We will make the arrangements for handling it clear in good time before it comes to this House, following discussions with all parties.
	The right hon. Lady made a point about the voting system. She will be aware that we have introduced a number of different voting systems in different parts of the country and that there was no provision in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill for reforming the voting system. We have said in our manifestos that there would not be any change to the voting system for this House without its having been voted on by the people of this country in a referendum.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned that a large number of amendments to the Housing and Regeneration Bill have been tabled. I must say to her that it is desirable and it is best—it facilitates the best scrutiny in this House—if all the technical, drafting and policy issues are sorted out in advance of a Bill's publication, so that it can make progress and the Government's position is clear. Sometimes it is necessary to table late amendments if a response is being made to proposals from hon. Members and if the Government agree to table amendments. Generally speaking, I agree that we do not want large rafts of amendments to be tabled, because it is difficult for hon. Members to scrutinise on that basis. I shall remind all my ministerial colleagues of the point that she makes, with which I think the whole House would agree.
	The right hon. Lady went on to raise a number of issues about London. She raised issues about the Metropolitan police in London and she will know that, following proposals from a number of hon. Members from all parties, that is the subject of today's topical debate. All the issues that she raised about the police in London can be raised in the topical debate. I shall consider her suggestions for a topical debate on the subject of Transport for London.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned what she alleged was a lack of care for pregnant women. She should know that since we came to government there are more midwives than there were under the Conservative Government, that each midwife deals with fewer births and can therefore give greater care to pregnant women, and that there is a lower number of deaths of women and babies at birth. I suggest that she focus on the quality of care and the outcome for the mother and the baby, which is what really matters. The outcomes for mothers and babies are improving. Of course, no one wants the uncertainty that comes when a woman who expects to give birth in a particular place has to be moved to a different hospital, but sometimes, such as if there is a question about intensive care facilities, there has to be a transfer. By and large, I would not want the right hon. Lady to give the impression that midwifery services are deteriorating. They are not; they are improving. Of course, they could always be improved further, and the Government will endeavour to ensure that that happens.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the question of careers advice in schools in relation to our armed forces. The Government strongly back the single services team, which goes into about 1,000 schools at the invitation of the school and tells children about the work that goes on in the Army. Schools have a number of visits from people from all walks of life, and it is obviously right that the forces should be part of that, on the invitation of the school.
	The right hon. Lady's last issues were a basket of party political point scoring, so I will not respond to them.

Keith Vaz: When can we have a debate on the excellent Byron review, which was published this morning? It accepts finally and for the first time that children can be affected by violent video games and access to the internet, that that process needs to be monitored carefully, and that we need a new partnership between parents and the industry. Will the Government accept the recommendations in full? If they are prepared to accept the recommendations, when can the House debate the matter, as so many Members on both sides are keen to do so?

Simon Hughes: May I follow the last exchange by joining the tribute to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee? I support the call for a debate on the labelling of videos and also on the management of amusement arcade machines, which often have equally violent scenes. It is obvious nonsense that we have never managed to get a grip on the sort of violence youngsters can see in places to which they have easy access. If we can debate that soon, it would be welcome.
	On the Housing and Regeneration Bill, may I couple the protest that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made with a reminder to the Leader of the House that she said on the Floor of the House that, when the Government tabled a large number of new clauses or amendments, she would consider providing extra time so that that did not eat into the time for Opposition new clauses and amendments? May I ask that, as a matter of urgency, she seeks to apply that to next week, so that all the Government business has the time that it needs, but that the amendments that the Opposition table also have the proper time? May we also have the time that the Bill really needs for Report, not the nonsense of trying to fit a quart into a pint pot on Monday?
	Later on Monday night, we will have the welcome debate on the transfer order on Northern Rock. I shall leave the substance of that issue to one side, but given the absolutely damning report on the Financial Services Authority's four major and many minor failures of scrutiny, may we have an early debate on why we have an authority that is meant to regulate but is clearly not up to regulating the banking industry?
	If the Leader of the House would rather have a wider debate, may I suggest that we have a whole-day debate in Government time on the regulation not just of the banking industry but of the water industry—people in many parts of England do not think that they are getting very good value for money—of the public utilities, for which people think that they are paying huge amounts for relatively poor service, and of the railway industry? Last weekend, we had what was called the Easter improvement programme, whereby many people did not get any services and many were not able to book in advance. Looking at regulation would be welcome, because it is not working in Britain. The whole idea was that regulators would be effective, not toothless watchdogs.
	I welcome the announcement that we will have a debate on Russia in Westminster Hall on 3 April. I remind the Leader of the House that she said she would look sympathetically on a debate on UK-China relations, which is no less urgent now than it was when bids were made for it in the past couple of weeks.
	The draft Constitutional Renewal Bill was published the other day, which was very welcome. Before the pre-legislative Committee starts its work, may we have a debate about the proposed role of Law Officers? It is a ring-fenced issue, and there is now a clear proposal that there should be no interference with decisions except in matters of national security, however that is defined. Some of us think that what happened over the BAE Systems prosecution brought this country into severe disrepute. We need to get out of a system in which there is clear political interference in an inquiry into whether criminal offences have been committed.
	Finally, we have had an announcement today that five police authorities—Lincolnshire, Cheshire, Leicestershire, Cleveland and Warwickshire—are to have their budgets capped, even though Lincolnshire police authority, for example, is asking for only £2 a week on council tax so that it can police Lincolnshire properly. May we have a debate urgently about these issues, so that the public can realise what nonsense the council tax system is, and that it is even more of a nonsense when councils are not allowed to raise and spend the council tax that they want? Police authorities, like councils, want to be able to get on with the job, and the Government's system is preventing them from doing so.

Harriet Harman: Some of my colleagues invite me to say that the hon. Gentleman should read the departmental report, but I sympathise with him. If the report is available, it is not much more trouble to give a full answer. Parliamentary answers should be full and helpful. The House is holding Government Departments and agencies to account and replies should not be provided grudgingly—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]

Stephen O'Brien: I am sorry that I was late for the opening minutes of the Minister's statement, but I have now had the opportunity to catch up. The Minister rightly praises Cheshire's neighbourhood policing commitment, but the police authority and the chief constable have said that if they do not manage to secure an increase in funding neighbourhood policing will have to be the first point for cuts. That seems ironic when taken with the other targets that the police authority has to meet, including anti-terrorism, particularly in relation to the adjacent Merseyside and Greater Manchester challenges and to the rurality of the area. What should Cheshire do to recalibrate the starting point, so as to address this historical problem and deficit and to ensure that we start from a point that is fair to Cheshire, rather than continuing to build in a penal regime?

David Taylor: Notwithstanding the fact that council tax is at the very edge of acceptability for many people, I urge the Minister not to cap the Leicestershire police force and certainly not to require in-year rebilling. The authority is at the very top of the national league tables in respect of performance and overall professionalism. The current cost is £2.67 a week, and the increase in 41p has been widely consulted on and broadly supported. Will he look again at authorities such as Leicestershire that are well adrift of the formula figure that they should receive? Over the last two years, it would have provided an extra £3 million a year on average, and the same is true over the next three years. When he reaches a decision, will he take into account the quality of the police force and the distance that is from the formula funding that it should receive?

John Healey: If my hon. Friend's points are part of the case put by the police authority, I will, of course, take them into account. On the question of rebilling, every authority that has set an excessive budget or council tax level went into the process with their eyes wide open. The risk of rebilling, the cost of rebilling and the practical difficulties and disruption of rebilling are part and parcel of the consequences experienced by any authority if we finally have to take a decision to cap council tax rises and require such a step to be taken.

Joan Ryan: The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) represents one of the safest constituencies in the country, but has opposed measures to fight gun crime and antisocial behaviour here in London. He opposed the automatic five-year sentence for carrying a gun illegally. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) will explain that to us in the context of tackling violent crime in London.

David Ruffley: I wish to make some progress first.
	If the Minister will not accept statistics in black and white, surely there is one thing on which we can agree: the need for greater police visibility in London. Surely there is common ground on that. There is, however, a huge difference between our prescriptions and those of the Labour Government.
	I am sure we can agree that if there are more police on the beat, they deter more crime and more arrests are made. After 11 September 2001, the police redeployed 1,500 officers from outer London to the city centre. At the time, Ian Blair described the impact of that redeployment on crime levels. He said:
	"On 13 September, street crime began to rise in the outer boroughs and go down in the centre. By Christmas, the rise in street crime everywhere except central Westminster had become almost vertical, with nearly 7,000 robberies and snatch thefts in January",
	which, he said, represented an increase of more than 50 per cent.
	After the July bombings, the redeployment of officers on the streets—for which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley has argued so powerfully in the past few weeks, and will argue powerfully in future weeks—had a similar effect. A study in the aftermath of 7 July found that, in the six months following the incident, increased police deployment in six key London boroughs had led to a significant fall in crime. That is why London Conservatives, and Conservatives nationally, are serious about cutting the bureaucracy that is heaped on our hard-working police officers. It is not acceptable that, in London, the amount of time spent on patrol decreased from 13.7 per cent. in 2003-04 to 12.8 per cent. in 2006-07.

David Ruffley: It is an important point on which there is cross-party agreement. The chief constable of Cheshire, Peter Fahey, is the ACPO lead on the issue and I have had many fruitful discussions on this. There is cross-party understanding that BME recruitment to the Met has gone up under Sir Ian Blair's leadership, for which he should be given credit—a high proportion of PCSOs are from BME backgrounds—but that that is not reflected in the ranks of constables or sergeants. More needs to be done and I know that the liberal-minded, socially concerned leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley when he becomes London Mayor will be addressing that. He is an inclusive modernising and very much forward-looking Conservative.

Andrew Dismore: As was said earlier, that cannot be paid for in the way that the hon. Member for Henley proposes. However, the fact remains that he has called CCTV an erosion of liberty. How he squares his circle is for him to justify. He is not here to answer that particular point for himself. That is a pity, because on the one hand he says it is an erosion of liberty, but on the other hand he says he wants to have more CCTV. That is another example of Tory flip-flopping from day to day.
	Against the background of increased priority for, and investment in, the police, there has been a significant fall in crime for the fifth year in a row. It is now at the lowest level since 1999. We can argue about statistics, but those pre-2002 are not comparable. There has been a 19 per cent. fall in murders. Gun crime is down 22 per cent., robbery down 12 per cent., rape down 25 per cent., grievous bodily harm down 10 per cent., domestic violence down 15 per cent. and knife crime down by 18 per cent. since its peak in 2004.

Tom Brake: I echo the tributes paid to the police for the dangerous job that they do. I also welcome the fact that a statement was made earlier. Although we cannot talk now about the concerns raised in Surrey, it is worth pointing out—hon. Members who have seen the press reports will know this—that if Surrey's force has to cut £4 million from its budget, it will drop a big operation to prevent criminals moving in and out of the county, which would undoubtedly have an impact on London.
	Policing in London is, of course, a priority, and there are a number of reasons for that. First, London is a prime terrorist target and the police in London need to be adequately resourced to address that issue. In passing, I should question the effectiveness of some of the measures that are being taken. Some hon. Members may have seen posters that state:
	"Thousands of people take photos every day. What if one of them seems odd?".
	I am willing to be convinced that the campaign is effective. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how effective it has been. I know that it is of concern to at least 91 Members of Parliament, who have signed an early-day motion expressing concern that people are being accosted while innocently taking photographs and asked precisely what they are doing. I would like to be convinced that the campaign will be effective and will not simply add to a climate of fear.
	London is the world's financial centre, which brings specific crime issues, particularly those associated with e-crime. I hope that the Government will update us about the cross-departmental committee that is to be set up to examine e-crime.
	Major events in London must be policed; for example, President Sarkozy's visit yesterday would have used a lot of police resources. London has high deprivation, especially in the inner-city areas, which leads to additional or above-average levels of crime.
	For all those reasons, policing in London is a priority. For many years, law and order has been the greatest concern for Londoners. This debate has confirmed that such issues will be the focus of much of the mayoral campaign, so it is worth spending a little of the little time available contrasting the offerings of the various mayoral candidates.
	The Liberal Democrat candidate, Brian Paddick, has 30 years' experience at the sharp end of policing in London. His record spans the Brixton riots and tackling hard drugs in Lambeth. He plans to chair the Metropolitan Police Authority and bring that experience to bear on it. He has pledged to introduce a guard on trams after 9 pm and on the 10 worst bus routes, and to reduce crime by 5 per cent. every year during his first term. Unlike the present Mayor, who promised to reduce crime by 50 per cent. but has so far achieved only an 18.5 per cent. reduction, Brian Paddick will resign if he does not deliver on his pledge at the end of his first term.
	The Mayor has broken his promise made in 2004 to reduce crime by 50 per cent., and he appears to have thrown in the towel. Many hon. Members will be aware of his comments on gun and knife crime during the "London Talking" debate:
	"No Mayor, no commissioner of police, can stop young people killing each other if they haven't been given a moral code."
	The Mayor, who is responsible for policing and who claims credit for successes in London, clearly has a responsibility and the ability to do something about young people killing each other in London—if he does not, he should resign and make way for someone who does.
	The Mayor has pledged to deliver 1,000 new officers, and Labour Members have referred to that. It is worth examining the pledge on the 1,000 new officers whom he will apparently provide, because in fact he will not provide them: the Home Office will provide the vast majority through its funding or through the boroughs. The Mayor's role will be very limited. We know that, within that figure, he was seeking 300 designated security posts, but only 97 will be delivered. He was also seeking 300 counter-terrorism officers, and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm whether they will be delivered. There are already significant gaps in the Mayor's promised 1,000 new officers.

Andrew Slaughter: I entirely agree that that is a serious problem. The death of Kodyo Yenga in Hammersmith and Fulham only a year ago was one of a number of tragic events at that time. We must keep this in perspective, as such events are still rare. One death, particularly of a young person, is a serious matter. However, I feel that the issue has been sensationalised—not by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and his party, but certainly by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) who has not graced the Chamber with his presence during this debate. That is a disgrace as he seeks— [ Interruption. ] He was present for about 10 minutes. No doubt he has another more important—

Andrew Slaughter: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesman specifically said that his party's candidate would introduce an extra 440 officers, paid for out of a fund that does not exist. I was there when the hon. Member for Henley explained that and talked about an increase in funding through public relations from a budget that simply does not exist. Like all the protestations made by that Oxfordshire Member, these are magical figures. His budget for additional spending for buses was said to be £8 million yet the true cost was £110 million.

Tony McNulty: I apologise: the hon. Gentleman looks nothing like the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). I can tell him that it is well within the scope of borough commanders to determine whether ward teams should work together and ensure that areas are covered geographically rather than on a ward basis.
	All the success in policing and our future progress in that area is rooted in the success that the Mayor and Sir Ian Blair have achieved over the past eight years, and that should be commended. No matter where people want to go next, they should commend and recognise the great record of the Metropolitan police in London. London is very different from how it was 10 or 15 years ago—and I would say that no matter which party ran the Greater London council or central Government back then. Our task as London MPs is to work with the Mayor to build on that, and to ensure that our investment is returned in style. We must work closely with those responsible for community safety, and with local government, to make sure that that is the case.
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proce edings, the motion lapsed, with out Question put, pursuant to Standing Order  No. 24A .

Kali Mountford: I preface my remarks by declaring two interests. The first is that I am a member of the advisory panel on Members' allowances, and the second is that I employ my husband. From the first day I started to employ him, that fact has appeared in my election address. When the fury about the employment of Members' families broke out, I had only one communication about it. That came from someone who regularly writes me letters—usually angry letters—but on this occasion it was to congratulate me on employing Ian, which was described as one of the best decisions I had ever made. Clearly, not everyone thinks it is necessarily a bad thing to employ one's spouse. Sometimes, however, we have to think a little more deeply about our decisions in the House, and on this occasion, I want us to think more deeply about our job descriptions.
	When we started to reflect on these issues, we began by discussing the consultation on the Senior Salaries Review Body, which predates the fury about what happened in the particular case we all know about, so I do not quite agree that we always come to these matters kicking and screaming. We are also looking into personnel functions—another important aspect. Since I advertise the fact that I employ my husband, I am obviously not against transparency, but I am concerned about job descriptions.
	The fact that I am a little disabled is clear for everyone to see, so it is not a private matter for me, but for some people, becoming disabled is a private matter. It is necessary for the fact that my husband is my carer to form part of his job description, because the rules of the House say that if someone is one's carer, it must be part of their job description. If have checked today, and that is a condition laid down by the House, so that other allowances can flow.
	Other Members who are disabled might want to keep their disabilities a private matter. Not all disabilities are public. Not all people with disabilities use wheelchairs or have a walking stick, as I do. Some disabilities are private, and some people prefer to keep illnesses a private matter. While this is a narrow area, we must consider whether such matters need to be revisited. If it is a rule of the House that allowances due to Members flow from job descriptions, the Committee needs to consider that situation so that some privacy can be afforded to Members, and we do not have a two-tier system regarding job descriptions.

Harriet Harman: I thank the Standards and Privileges Committee for its work. The report is based on consideration of the issues, followed by a consultation exercise. I thank the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for chairing the Committee and for the clarity with which he introduced the report. As is the convention, we found time for the report to be debated promptly following its publication.
	Let me say a little about the background. I remind the House, as a number of hon. Members have done, that on 24 January—before the publication of the report on the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway)—the House decided that we must deal with the question of our pay and how we decide on it, and also with the question of our allowances.
	In respect of pay, we acted on the proposal made many years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that our pay should be pegged to an external comparator, and that there should be an independent review mechanism so that we need no longer vote on our own pay. On 24 January, the House accepted that proposal. Sir John Baker is now conducting a review which will propose a comparator and a mechanism. He is taking evidence, and will produce a report by the end of May. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to vote on his recommendations before the House rises for the summer recess. The process was already in hand before the breaking of the scandal relating to the abuse of public funds by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
	At the same time, we discussed allowances. I made clear then, as I do today, that we ought to treat the matter of our pay—our remuneration—separately from that of reimbursement. We need to ensure that Members can be reimbursed for travelling to and from their constituencies, and that they can be compensated for the extra expense of having two homes, one in London, so that they can represent their constituents at Westminster, and, in the case of out-of-London Members, one in the constituency.
	All Members of Parliament also need proper, well-funded offices to support them in their work. If we believe that legislation should be scrutinised properly, they must have proper staff in their offices to assist them with that scrutiny. If we want people to be properly represented in the constituencies and helped with individual case work, there must be a proper staff complement. Remuneration for travel, for living away from home and for staff offices is important. We decided on 24 January that we would refer the question of allowances for a root-and-branch review to the Members Estimate Committee, and, before the issue of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup arose, the Speaker's Committee took on the responsibility.
	It has been agreed that that should come back to the House by July. I had originally thought that to have a separation between pay and allowances—

Shailesh Vara: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for the sterling work he does as Chairman of the Committee, and I thank his fellow Committee members, not only for having produced the report so expeditiously but for all the other work they do on that very important Committee. The disclosure requirements complement the broader review that is being undertaken by the Members Estimates Committee, the findings of which will be published just before the summer recess.
	My party and I welcome the proposals. It is important that there is transparency in all we do and in how we use taxpayers' money. That is particularly so when family members are involved and are paid from the staffing allowance, which at the end of the day is taxpayers' money. However, I wish to put on record my tribute to the enormous hard work done by family members for hon. Members. I do not employ any family members as part of my staff but I have seen many others who do.
	It is important to remember that the job of a Member's personal assistant—if he or she is a spouse—does not end at 5 o'clock; it is not a nine-to-five job. When the Member goes home, so does the spouse, but also so does the personal assistant. The work continues to be done at home, including at weekends. It is important to recognise the work done by spouses.
	I also wish to put it on the record that the Leader of the Opposition has already instructed his Front-Bench team that any family members that they employ should be registered, and we welcome the fact that the Standards and Privileges Committee has followed that line. The House will be aware that the Leader of the Opposition has also said that, from 1 April, his Front-Bench team must itemise their spending in terms of the different allowances.
	The report is a step in the right direction, towards transparency, and Conservative Members welcome it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House approves the Seventh Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 436) on Employment of family members through the Staffing Allowance; and endorses the changes proposed by the Committee in the purpose and form of the Register of Members' Interests.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr.  Alan  Campbell.]

Mark Simmonds: I begin by thanking Mr. Speaker for selecting this debate on an issue that has caused a great deal of interest and controversy in my constituency. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for being here to respond to the debate. I understand that the debate is allowed to continue until 6.30 pm, but I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Under-Secretary that I shall not keep the House here until then.
	It is important that I set out some of the background to this important issue. I wish to put on record some of the important statistics—particularly economic ones—that pertain to the borough of Boston and to south-east Lincolnshire. The borough of Boston covers approximately 36,000 hectares, or 139 sq miles. Most of the area is rural, comprising rich, agricultural fenland. Boston is a sub-regional centre.
	The borough of Boston has a population of 53,700, half of whom live in Boston. The population of Lincolnshire and of the Boston and Skegness constituency have increased significantly over the past decade. There has also been a significant increase in the migrant population, who often work in agriculture and horticulture.
	The town of Boston is the focus for retail and business activity and the delivery of public sector services for this region of Lincolnshire. It has a commercial catchment population of between 80,000 and 100,000.
	There is only one port in the east midlands, and it is in Boston. Regular sailings go to Germany, Holland and Scandinavia, and the port offers a significant range of facilities for container, bulk and sideport services 24 hours a day. The port of Boston handles 750 vessels per annum, which generates significant haulage—I shall return to that point.
	There are also significant industrial activities, based around the Riverside industrial estate and other smaller industrial estates. Major companies are located in and around Boston, including Del Monte, Finnforest and Norprint, as are a significant number of pack houses, whose sole job is to pack agricultural produce for delivery to all the main supermarkets around the UK 364 days a year.
	It is also important that the House understands the breakdown of the work force in the Boston area. The total work force is approximately 34,000, 29 per cent. of whom are employed in distribution services, 27 per cent. in public services and public administration—approximately 2,000 of them are employed at the main hospital in my constituency, Pilgrim hospital—15 per cent. in manufacturing and 11 per cent. in agriculture, which is one of the highest proportions of agricultural employment in the UK.
	As well as being a significant employer, agriculture and tangential businesses clearly create a significant amount of traffic, and not just the obvious vehicles—tractors looking after the farms, and ploughing-in the crops and removing them when ready. Consumers now demand fresh produce from supermarkets 364 days of the year. Lincolnshire produces 20 per cent. of the country's output, resulting in lorries carrying loads to deliver produce to supermarkets. To secure a contract with a supermarket, a farmer or pack house owner must be able to supply produce to it 364 days a year. Given our climate, we cannot grow the produce 364 days a year, so much of it must be imported from elsewhere in Europe—and further afield—and particularly from Spain and Poland, from where it is delivered by road to the pack houses in my constituency and packed before being delivered to the main supermarket chains, all of which generates significant amounts of traffic. There are important wider implications, too: climate change, energy security and the demand for food have combined to make agriculture a strategically important industry.
	It is not just the important economic activity in Boston that generates traffic. Boston is also a gateway to the east Lincolnshire coast. Tourism in Lincolnshire is dominated by the coastal resorts of Skegness and Ingoldmells, both of which are in my constituency. There are 3.4 million staying visitors on the east Lincolnshire coast and 13 million day visitors per annum. I acknowledge that not all of them pass through Boston, but a significant number of them do. The east midlands tourism strategy has the ambition and vision that by 2010 tourism will play a significantly greater role in the prosperity of the east midlands, which inevitably will increase traffic flows.
	As I am sure the Minister is aware, the primary road network providing access to the east Lincolnshire coast is not good. The A16 from the north and the A52 from the south are two-way single-carriageway routes. In addition, there are almost 30,000 caravans or mobile homes in a tightly drawn zone of coastal hinterland: the largest single collection of mobile homes in Europe. Those mobile homes and caravans contribute to the local visitor economy and meet a clear demand for relatively inexpensive holiday accommodation. The highly popular attractions of Fantasy Island and Butlins in Skegness, which accommodate 12,000 people a week, generate significant traffic flows.
	Vehicle movement is stimulated not only by visitors to the east Lincolnshire coast and the economic activity around Boston, but by normal people living normal lives. South-east Lincolnshire is a very rural area, where people have no choice but to use their cars and other motor vehicles. Public transport is extremely limited. In addition to the towns of Boston and Skegness, my constituency alone contains 73 villages. Many people who live in those villages work in the centre of Boston. People have no choice but to use their cars to get to work, to collect children from school, to go to the supermarket and to go about the other business of their daily lives.
	All those factors combine to create regular, persistent and significant congestion, not only within Boston, but along the roads leading into it. The Minister will be aware of the impacts of congestion, which include the negative impacts on the town centre as people choose to shop and conduct their business elsewhere. People who live on one side of Boston go to Spalding to do their shopping and people who live on the eastern side of Boston go to Skegness to do theirs, which has had a detrimental impact on business in the centre of Boston.
	New businesses that might come to Boston are refusing to locate as a direct result of the appalling traffic. Even more worryingly, some historic Boston-located businesses are saying privately to me that unless something improves, and because of the additional time and cost in getting their produce and goods to market, they will have no choice but to relocate. The situation causes obvious problems for the emergency services, and constant congestion also leads to high carbon footprints and very poor air quality. In short, the prosperity of the area is being damaged and undermined by the poor road infrastructure.
	People may ask whether, as the constituency Member of Parliament, I am alone in feeling passionately about this issue. The answer is definitely no, and there is strong evidence to support that: the petition that I have presented to this House and a petition presented to Downing street earlier today, both of which contained 11,000 signatures from the people of the borough of Boston, and the significant success of the Boston Bypass Independent party in the recent local elections in the borough of Boston, in which it swept all the traditional political parties out of power by winning 27 out of a possible 32 seats and becoming the ruling group. Most of those representatives are here in the Public Gallery to listen to the Minister's response, and they are extremely welcome, as are the other members of the Boston by-pass pressure group. A significant and dedicated group has also worked very hard for a number of years to try to raise this issue and find solutions to this significant problem.
	I know that the Minister is extremely diligent, so I am sure that he will have been briefed very thoroughly. I hope that he will therefore be aware that the Lincolnshire structural plan states that Boston
	"must encourage the diversification of the economy... by supporting the development of Boston as a retail, heritage tourism, business and service centre for south-east Lincolnshire"
	It also states that Boston has
	"to invest in the Port."
	That will be very difficult to achieve while the town is often gridlocked.
	Those aims are also recognised within both the regional spatial strategy and the regional economic strategy for the east midlands. The local area masterplan for Boston, which sets out the future vision for economic development in Boston, concludes that the existing transport infrastructure is the main barrier preventing Boston from developing into a more vibrant urban centre.
	In recognition of the importance of the role of transport in supporting economic initiatives at local and regional level, the county council and Boston borough council commissioned a transport study for Boston, covering all modes of transport. The study clearly recognises the need for investment in transport infrastructure to support the continued growth of Boston, with particular emphasis on housing, economic growth and tourism.
	I acknowledge that there has been some progress through short-term measures. There has been collective agreement from disparate sources to put £10 million into improved short-term road infrastructure. Turning off the traffic lights at one roundabout in Boston has enabled better flow—a decision that has been universally applauded. New bus routes will go through the centre of town. They are not necessarily universally popular or applauded, but we shall see whether they make a significant difference.
	The transport strategy aimed to do four things: to reduce car use for journeys that are wholly within Boston; to improve public transport access and provision; to improve cycling and pedestrian management in the town centre; and to encourage walking and cycling where possible. Those extremely laudable aims could, if combined, make a contribution and a short-term difference. However, in a big rural county such as Lincolnshire, people have no choice but to use their cars and other motor vehicles.
	That needs to be put in the context of the projected vehicle number increases. The Department for Transport's figures state that by 2025 across the UK—not just in Lincolnshire—there will be an expected increase in kilometre journeys of 31 per cent. and in congestion of 28 per cent. It is not sufficient to say that short-term measures are a medium or long-term solution—they are not, particularly when they are coupled with the continued population growth in Boston, which has occurred for a variety of reasons, including the relatively low-cost housing and a significant influx of migrant labour working in agriculture and horticulture.
	I have come to the conclusion, along with many representatives of local people who are here today and watching in Boston, that the only solution is what is euphemistically called a "distributor road" around Boston. That would provide quicker access to and egress from Boston as well as a quicker route for people who want to travel to the east Lincolnshire coast and back to Boston.
	Boston borough council and Lincolnshire county council recognise that they must work together through the local development framework and the Boston transport strategy as well as the local transport plan. Those matters are progressing. A distributor road would aim to remove as much traffic that starts or finishes in Boston as possible. It would thereby maximise the number of opportunities that Boston traffic would have to access the distributor road as an alternative to travelling through the town centre along John Adams way.
	As a major part of funding the distributor road, those involved would seek to maximise private sector contributions. That is a significant issue that I want the Minister to engage with, if not today then in the future. I will talk about that in more detail later. We need significantly to improve air quality, including in the air quality management area. Those environmental benefits would have knock-on impacts that would contribute to the improved use of public space in the town centre.
	The result, in my view, would be that the town centre would become a more attractive location for residents, businesses and visitors, thereby sustaining its role as a sub-regional centre. The strategy will also act as a catalyst for development opportunities through the town. We will have to integrate a distributor road with new development as the way to redistribute traffic and meet the needs for new development.
	As with all such things, there is a further complication. Lincolnshire is at risk of flooding, particularly because of climate change and rising sea levels. The 1953 flood on the east Lincolnshire coast killed 43 people, although Boston has not flooded significantly in living memory. The latest Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs guidance, of December 2006, suggests that from now until the turn of the next century defences along the Lincolnshire coast must allow for a sea level rise of almost 0.95 m, with the annual rate of increase rising from 4 mm a year now to 15 mm a year after 2085.
	Some 88 per cent. of land in the fens is cultivated, and the fertile soils account for about half of all grade 1 land in the country, which is the most productive farmland in England. In the borough of Boston, virtually all the agricultural land is grade 1 or grade 2. A successful and sustainable future for the fens is therefore vital to the country, if only for food security. It is imperative that there is sufficient funding to enable authorities to take appropriate action to minimise risk and the impact of future events.
	A continued programme of investment in flood defence measures is vital to mitigate the risk of flooding due to the effects of climate change. It would be completely unacceptable for that high-quality agricultural land, which makes such a significant contribution to UK food supplies and the people who work in that part of Lincolnshire, to be allowed to disappear under the sea. It is inconceivable.
	The Environment Agency has played a significant role in its input into the east midlands regional spatial strategy, which recommends that until a coastal study is completed on the role and the future of the Lincolnshire coastal authorities, properly to understand the climate change and flood risk issues, development restraint should be shown. What does that mean? It means that planning for natural growth and associated infrastructure improvement is to be halted, and that proper planning for economic growth and the necessary road infrastructure improvements cannot be undertaken. There is a paradox here: on one hand, the Environment Agency is restricting development and economic and infrastructure enhancement, but on the other it is simultaneously funding the construction of a Boston flood barrage, thereby ensuring Boston's security for the future. It cannot have it both ways.
	In the Boston area, which does not have a history of flooding, there needs to be an approach that allows appropriate, sensible growth. Due to the excellent work of the internal drainage boards in and around Boston, the sophisticated pumping systems and the significant and excellent local expertise, it is one of the least likely areas in the country to flood. Of course, all bodies need to work together, and environmental adaptation strategies need to be put in place, but we cannot allow Boston to be frozen in time and wither on the vine.
	If the Secretary of State were to accept the recommendations of the panel on the east midlands regional spatial strategy, that would seriously undermine the progress that can be made on establishing a local development framework that will deliver a distributor road. Essentially, all development in the short to medium term would be confined to sites that already have the benefit of planning permission and to brownfield sites in built-up areas. I understand that, even now, the Environment Agency is stopping planning permission for modest residential sites within the curtilage of the built-up part of the borough of Boston, so that there may be no further development.
	One could well ask why this is so important. It is vital because a significant proportion of the funding for such a road would have to come from developers' contributions. If there is no development, there will be no contributions and therefore no significant and necessary improvements to Boston's road infrastructure. The stated aim is to use the development framework so that as Boston grows the distributor road is constructed. The people of Boston require central Government buy-in, however, and they will require capital funding to commence the process.
	I have three final points. The first is to suggest that the DFT must engage with DEFRA, because there may well be a solution that can provide and improve the road infrastructure and provide necessary flood defences to the borough of Boston. The second is that I want to ensure that the Minister understands the strength of feeling that exists in Boston. I hope that he will agree to receive a delegation from the borough so that we can explain in more detail what needs to be done to improve the road infrastructure and therefore the life and work of everybody in Boston.
	My final point is that the Department for Transport should engage with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and therefore with the Environment Agency, to ensure that the latter does not hinder the necessary economic growth, and therefore residential development, that will be required to fund the much needed road infrastructure improvement in Boston.
	In conclusion, I wish to re-emphasise the vital role that improving the road infrastructure will have to play if Boston is to continue to thrive as a sub-regional centre of Lincolnshire. Without the improvements in the road infrastructure, there is a real danger that Boston will just wither on the vine.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) on securing the debate. I thank him for not continuing until 6.30 pm, although whatever time we finish here or in our offices, I wager that as an east London MP, I will be home sooner than he will.
	The hon. Gentleman graphically and passionately described the traffic problems experienced in Boston. I know from the petition that he presented to the House last December that it is an important issue for local residents. I share his, and their, desire to see accessibility improved. Good transport is essential for a successful economy and society. People travel daily and want a transport system that gets them from A to B safely, securely and without damaging the environment. Businesses rely on transport not only for their work force and customers to use, but to ensure that their goods can be transported quickly and cheaply. As he pointed out in relation to Boston town centre, customers also need to be able to reach retail businesses so that they can flourish.
	The challenge for the Government is to frame a transport strategy that not only supports living within our environmental means, but sustains a strong economy. We believe that we cannot simply build our way out of the congestion problems that we face. It would be environmentally irresponsible and it would not work. We must therefore make our existing transport networks operate more efficiently and in a more environmentally friendly way. Our goal is a road network that provides a more reliable and freer flowing system for users, and where travellers can make informed choices about how and when they travel, and so minimise the adverse impact of road traffic on the environment.
	We are investing in the road network through the regional funding allocation, the Highways Agency and the local transport plan process. We are also improving traffic management in our towns and cities, particularly through the powers set out in the draft traffic management Bill, and encouraging the adoption of "smarter choices", through school and workplace travel planning, while also promoting and facilitating public transport, cycling and walking.
	Buses are the main form of public transport and are a powerful tool in tackling problems caused by congestion. Increased investment in bus services and improved partnership working are beginning to reverse the decline in bus patronage, but to realise their full potential we need more bus networks that provide flexible and convenient services tailored to local needs and offering a reliable way to travel to and from jobs, schools, shops and other services. Yesterday's successful second reading of the Local Transport Bill will help to achieve that. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's comments about the new arrangements and the need to wait to see whether they will improve the situation in Boston.
	Perceptions of our transport system are, of course, governed by our individual experiences and I fully acknowledge that getting around, into and through Boston is difficult, especially at peak times. As the hon. Gentleman said, responsibility for the roads in Boston rests with the local highway authority, Lincolnshire county council. As he described, it is working with Boston borough council to tackle the congestion problem, and an important consideration is that, as a traditional market town and port, Boston is itself a destination for a considerable amount of traffic. I fully acknowledge that.
	I understand that studies by Lincolnshire county council indicate that a bypass would remove less than 20 per cent. of traffic from the town centre. Consequently, Lincolnshire has made no provision for a bypass scheme in its local transport plan, as the hon. Gentleman knows. However, the authorities worked in partnership with local residents to publish, in December 2006, the transport strategy for Boston. That document recognises the need for, among other things, investment in transport infrastructure. Following an analysis of Boston's traffic problems, it proposes a number of transport improvements in the short term—up to 2010—and in the longer term.
	In the short term, the focus is on improving public transport by introducing a new in-town service, with bus priority measures and real-time passenger information; improving the A16 and A52 main roads in the town to allow traffic to flow more freely, reducing journey times by up to 30 per cent.; introducing car parking improvements and traffic management measures to smooth the flow of through-traffic in Boston; and introducing measures to encourage walking and cycling. Clearly, none of that will happen without funding, and I am pleased to say that through the local transport plan process, the Department for Transport is playing a full part in supporting transport investment in Lincolnshire.
	Not including major scheme and de-trunked roads maintenance expenditure, we have invested £113 million in the county in the past 5 years. Building on that, the county council was awarded £24.6 million for 2008-09 in the LTP settlement last November. That figure will rise to £28.4 million in 2010-11. Drawing on that investment, its own resources, and those of the borough council, the county council has allocated £10 million to fund the short-term works set out in the transport strategy for Boston.
	In the longer term, the transport strategy recognises that there is a need for additional road infrastructure—a local distributor road, as the hon. Gentleman said, and not a fully fledged bypass—to provide traffic with an alternative to travelling through the town centre. A local distributor road, partly funded through developer contributions, would aim to ease access to the town centre and remove through-traffic. I understand the view that one way of delivering extra road infrastructure is with developer contributions, specifically for new housing in Boston, but I hear what he says about potential problems with such contributions because of conflicting policy advice. Boston has signalled its interest in housing growth in its response to the Government's invitation for bids for new growth point status.
	The borough council envisages that a local distributor road could be a key component of the economic development of the town, but as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it is not quite as simple as that. As he says, in considering the case for new development in or around Boston, one critical factor that must not be overlooked is the risk of flooding, whether that be from rising sea levels or extreme weather resulting from global warming. I am pleased that, in recognition of the need to consider all the relevant implications of new development, interested parties are working together to devise a coastal strategy that will balance the benefits of regeneration through development with the risk of flooding. I applaud the input of the local authorities—East Lindsey and South Holland district councils, Lincolnshire county council and Boston borough council—which are working with the East Midlands Development Agency, the Environment Agency, the East Midlands regional assembly and the Government office for the east midlands.
	The outcome of that work will be crucial in helping to guide future development in and around Boston, and on the entire Lincolnshire coastal strip. However, we must await the completion of the work before we make meaningful judgments on the amount or location of new development. Without prejudice to that work, I would like to spend a few moments explaining the funding process. As I said, responsibility for providing new road infrastructure rests with the local highway authority, which in this instance is Lincolnshire county council. It would be for the county council to take forward the preparation of any scheme and to negotiate with regional partners to secure its place among the investment priorities under the regional funding allocation for the region.
	The RFA was introduced by the Government in 2005 to help to integrate spending on transport, housing and economic development, and to give regions a greater voice in investment decisions. Subject to any scheme finding a place in the RFA—I must stress that competition for funds is keen—it would fall to the county council to take the scheme through the Department for Transport's appraisal stages, from programme entry to full approval. When those stages are completed, funding can be drawn down for construction.
	I strongly encourage the county and borough councils to continue their effective partnership working to address Boston's pressing traffic problems, and to continue to work with other partners to devise the coastal strategy that will clearly be of fundamental importance to Boston in the longer term. For my part, I can certainly offer the Department for Transport's continued support for Lincolnshire's local transport plan, and the assistance of officials in the Department and also of the Government office for the east midlands, as matters develop.
	On my availability for a meeting with the hon. Gentleman and local representatives and residents, given that, as I described, Lincolnshire county council is the first port of call, such a meeting would be of limited benefit, especially as the Department is not the initial decision maker in the process. I am prepared to discuss that with him outside the Chamber, but as I say, the first port of call should be Lincolnshire county council.